Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R.4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would say to my friend that he is absolutely right in pointing to the fact that we had a more than 2-hour hearing in the Rules Committee. The die was already cast. The decision had already been made that the only thing that would be made in order was an opportunity to increase the death tax, that burden on the intergenerational transfer that we believe is important to keep our economy growing. And the amendment that my friend offered, and my California colleague, Mr. Herger, offered a similar amendment to deal with this notion of ethanol subsidies, which are just plain wrong, and I'm troubled at the fact that this rule does not allow us a chance to address those issues.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me begin in the spirit of the season and say that I would like to associate myself with some of the remarks that were offered by the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules, and express appreciation to Ms. Slaughter for her very, very interesting and thoughtful approach to this issue.

I associate myself with the remarks she made when she said she doesn't like this measure. I associate myself with her in that in saying I don't like this measure that is before us, Mr. Speaker. But I like even less the idea of our imposing a tax increase on every single American who pays their income taxes. I believe that that would have a deleterious effect to the goal that we as Democrats and Republicans alike share.

What is the message that we have gotten over and over and over again and the message that was sent this past November 2? It was create jobs, focus on economic growth, make sure that we can do everything that we possibly can to look at those Americans who are hurting today, and make sure that they have an opportunity to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder. That is the driving message. Obviously, a very important part of that is going to be to reduce the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government, which has undermined the ability for job creation and economic growth to take place.

Now, when I say I don't like this measure that is before us, I don't like the fact, and many of my Republican colleagues have raised this-- Mr. Flake just raised concerns about the ethanol subsidies. I don't like the fact that we have unemployment benefits that are extended without being paid for. I don't like a number of the provisions here.

But we are in the midst of a very fragile economic recovery at this juncture, and I will tell you, mark my words, Mr. Speaker, beginning in January we are going to focus on cutting spending. I have just come from a meeting with a number of my colleagues, and we are determined to focus on that. That is why it is imperative that today we recognize that the issue that is before us is going to actually be helpful in our quest to deal with job creation and economic growth.

I congratulate President Obama for working in a bipartisan way to address this issue. In fact, I said in the last campaign that one of my priorities was to work to make President Obama a better President. I believe the fact that he has moved towards recognizing that a pro- growth economic policy has direct ties to the level of taxation imposed on working Americans and job creators is a positive sign, and I believe that moves him in the direction of being a better President.

I also have been encouraged by the fact that he wants to create jobs by opening up new markets around the world. I gave a 1-minute speech this morning talking about the importance of the key U.S.-Korea free trade agreement the President supports and I hope will send to us very soon. It will be the largest bilateral free trade agreement in the history of the world, when you look at the size of our economies. That is something that the President is supporting and I believe we will be able to work on in a bipartisan way.

So, Mr. Speaker, the notion of seeing President Obama shifting to the John F. Kennedy vision and the Ronald Reagan vision on economic growth is a very encouraging indicator to me and many of our colleagues, and should be for the American people as well.

Now, again I will say that Ms. Slaughter is absolutely right; we don't like this measure. But the idea of increasing taxes is something that is anathema to the vision of economic growth and job creation. And it is not just conservative economists who say that, it is not just the supply-siders, of which I consider myself to be one.

Keynesian economists, Mr. Speaker, Keynesian economists, those who subscribe to the view of John Maynard Keynes, who lived until 1950, recognizing and focusing on the issue of spending, those who subscribe to the Keynesian view recognize that increasing taxes on anyone when you are dealing with slow economic growth is a prescription for exacerbating, exacerbating, the problems that you are trying to address.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the midst of bipartisan discussions over the past several days with a number of my colleagues on the recognition that we have to say that Democrats should recognize that spending cuts need to take

place and Republicans need to recognize that tax increases need to take place. It is an interesting discussion, and many argue that that is sort of the give-and-take we have.

But I think it is important as we look at this issue to harken back on history. Next month I will begin my fourth decade here, and I will say that there was a study done in my first decade, during the 1980s, by two professors from Ohio University, Professors Vedder and Gallaway. Their study looked at the impact of tax increases in the quest to try to reduce spending and the size and scope of government and deal with the problem that Democrats and Republicans alike regularly decry, that being the expansion of government.

Well, their study was known as the $1.58 Study. What it showed, Mr. Speaker, was that every time there was $1 in taxes increased, the Federal Government increased spending by $1.58. Now, I remember one of the first measures that I voted against was known as the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, and in that measure they said there would be $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes increased.

Mr. Speaker, as we are here today just days before Christmas, going back to 1982 we got the $98.5 billion tax increase included in that, but we are still waiting for those $3 in spending cuts. The Vedder- Gallaway study made it very, very clear, looking on many occasions, the 1990 increase and other studies done since then have shown for every $1 in taxes increased, spending has increased from $1.05 to $1.81, and this is outlined in a piece that was done by Professor Vedder and Stephen Moore in The Wall Street Journal this week.

So our notion of saying that increasing taxes is going to deal with the deficit problem is again a specious argument.

Now, many argue that the tax that exists on job creators, those at the upper end, will create a great drain on the Federal Treasury. But if we are going to focus again on job creation and economic growth, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced, based on the vision put forth by Professor Arthur Laffer and many others, that the economic growth that will follow keeping those rates low on job creators will actually increase the flow of revenues to the Federal treasury, and keeping those top rates low, capital gains and dividend rates low, will spur the growth that will create jobs, and many people who today are not working and are in fact receiving unemployment benefits will have opportunity, and they will be joining the productive side of the economy and generating that flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury that we obviously desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have been asking us to do this for a long period of time. My colleagues have had an opportunity to do it for a long period of time. Unfortunately, here we are just 2 weeks, just 2 weeks before the end of the year, and 2 weeks before the largest income tax rate increase that we have seen in many a year is scheduled to take place.

So while there is much to criticize about this measure, and I could easily vote against it, I believe that the right vote for us to cast is a vote which will ensure that we continue down the road towards job creation and economic growth and allowing the American people to keep more of what they've earned.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very hardworking Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend and California colleague, the gentleman from Elk Grove, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Livonia, Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds, and I would like to ask him to yield to me, if he would.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to congratulate my friend on his very thoughtful statement and to say that, at the end of his remarks, Mr. Speaker, he talked about the notion of job creation/economic growth as a policy. Obviously ensuring that we don't increase taxes for any American who is paying income taxes is key to that.

I would appreciate hearing my colleague's thoughts on that.

Absolutely.

I thank my colleague for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to make it clear I am opposed to allowing tax increases to go into effect on January 1. However, I am also opposed to this rule and the underlying bill.

It's very interesting to hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle arguing against the tax bill before us today because of their concerns that we're adding to the deficit. We didn't hear those arguments when they were voting for the trillion-dollar stimulus and all the other trillions they have voted for in the past 4 years. In fact, their stories and those of the President have changed dramatically over the past few days. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put into the Record an article in American Thinker, December 14, ``Tax Cuts Clearly Explained.'' The article does a really good job of explaining the flip-flops on the side of the Democrats.

I want to quote a couple of sentences from it. It says, ``The Republican position was to keep tax rates where they are now and where they've been since 2003. Democrats fought to keep the Bush tax rates only for those making less than $250,000 in a year. That is curious, since they've been saying for about 10 years that the `Bush tax cuts' went only to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats are arguing to keep something they said never existed.'' So we

find our friends again on the other side of the aisle flip-flopping on this issue.

I'd also like to add a couple of more comments from this article. ``As a matter of record, the final Bush tax rates passed Congress in mid 2003, shortly after Republicans retook the Senate. From August 2003 to December 2007, over 8 million net new jobs were created and real GDP grew almost 3 percent per year. At the same time, Federal revenues increased by 2.3 percent of GDP, $785 billion, putting revenues above the average level of 1960 to 2000, the 40 years before Bush. Unemployment fell to 4.4 percent and the deficit fell to 1.2 percent of GDP. Such was the catastrophe of 4 years of Bush's tax rates and Republican-written Federal budgets.

``You will hear that this or that group, the top 2 percent of those who inherit dad's farm, et cetera, does not `deserve' to have its taxes kept at the current rate. There are only two alternatives for where that money goes: the family that earned it or the government. If the family doesn't `deserve' it, does the government?''

It appears from all the comments that our colleagues have made that they believe that the money that the hardworking Americans earn belongs to the government. As a member of the Rules Committee, I have seen up close how the ruling Democrats have violated every promise they made to run an open Congress but have shut out the opportunity to offer amendments.

We should vote down this rule and allow any amendments to be offered.

[From American Thinker, Dec. 14, 2010]

Tax Cuts Clearly Explained

(By Randall Hoven)

If you go to the White House website, right at the top is a

bar you can click on to see ``Tax Cuts Clearly Explained.''

If you click, you see a video of one of President Obama's

economic advisors using a whiteboard to explain that

Republicans are bad, that Obama is above politics, and that

if Obama gets his way, jobs and growth and goodness will

spring forth.

The video starts out simply enough. Republicans want to

extend the Bush tax rates for everyone; Obama wants to leave

out the top 2% of income earners. It was all about the Bush

tax rates and for how long, and to whom, to extend them.

But then the video starts talking about a host of things

unrelated to those tax rates. The economist even lists them

on his whiteboard.

Unemployment insurance,

Earned income tax credit,

American opportunity tax credit,

Child tax credit,

Payroll tax,

Investment incentives.

The ``clear'' explanation is that since the current tax

rates for the top 2% would be extended another couple years,

this list of unrelated ``targeted and temporary'' tax cuts

must be added to the package to somehow offset them. The

concern was that extending current tax rates for the top 2%

would increase the deficit too much. So politicians

compromised in a way that would increase the deficit more

than either party's initial proposal. (King of like the way

they compromised on TARP in 2008. Remember ``sweeteners''?)

Since Congress got into the compromise act, tax credits for

ethanol, alternative fuels, and who knows what else have also

been added.

In the spirit of clarity, what follows is my attempt to

explain tax cuts.

The Republican position was to keep tax rates where they

are now and where they've been since 2003.

1. Democrats fought to keep the Bush tax rates only for

those making less than $250,000 in a year. That is curious,

since they've been saying for about ten years that the ``Bush

tax cuts'' went only to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats

are arguing to keep something they said never existed.

2. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the entire

package, as currently proposed in the Senate, would add $858

billion to the 2011-2020 deficit. Without it, the 2011-2020

deficit would be $6,246 B. So this package theoretically

increases the ten-year deficit by 14%.

3. Of that $858 B, about $544 B comes from keeping current

tax rates; the rest comes from the new goodies unrelated to

the Bush rates. So because Democrats said some part of that

$544 B adds too much to the deficit, they added another $314

B to the deficit. That is how compromise and ``the middle

way'' work in Washington.

4. The CBO calculates future revenues under the assumption

that tax rates have zero effect on the behavior of investors,

consumers, employers, etc. Congress forces the CBO to make

that assumption. Every economist this side of Paul Krugman

knows that that assumption is wrong. One such economist is

Christina Romer, President Obama's first choice as chief of

his economic advisors. She said a tax increase of 1% of GDP

reduces GDP by about 1.84%. And she said that this year in a

published, peer-reviewed academic paper.

5. Another top economic adviser to President Obama, Larry

Summers, was more direct. ``If they do not pass this [tax cut

agreement] in the next couple of weeks, it will materially

increase the risk of the economy stalling out and that we

would have a double-dip [recession].'' Bill Clinton advised

that passing the tax cuts would ``minimize the chances that

it [the economy] will slip back [into recession].'' Again,

top Democrats say we must keep the Bush tax rates or the

recession resumes.

6. President Obama's view is that not keeping the Bush tax

rates on those making under $250,000 ``would be a grave

injustice'' and ``would deal a serious blow to our economic

recovery.'' Again, this is curious because Democrats keep

saying that Bush's tax cuts went only to the wealthiest

Americans and caused all the harm we now see to the economy.

But apparently, not continuing the Bush policy for 98% of

taxpayers would be a ``serious blow'' to the economy.

7. President Obama believes that keeping the current tax

rates for those making over $250,000 in a year ``would cost

us $700 billion'' and do ``very little to actually grow our

economy.'' He assures us that ``economists from all across

the political spectrum agree'' on that. I believed he polled

the same economists who said his stimulus would keep the

unemployment rate below 8%.

8. As a matter of record, the final Bush tax rates passed

Congress in mid-2003, shortly after Republicans retook the

Senate. From August 2003 to December 2007, over eight million

net new jobs were created, and real GDP grew almost 3% per

year. At that same time, federal revenues increased by 2.3%

of GDP ($785 B), putting revenues above the average level of

1960-2000, the forty years before Bush. Unemployment fell to

4.4%, and the deficit fell to 1.2% of GDP. Such was the

catastrophe of four years of Bush's tax rates and Republican-

written federal budgets.

9. You will hear that this or that group (the top 2%, those

who inherit dad's farm, etc.) does not ``deserve'' to have

its taxes kept at the current rate. There are only two

alternatives for where that money goes: the family that

earned it, or the government. If the family doesn't

``deserve'' it, does the government.?

[In fact, it appears from spoken and written comments that

our colleagues think that the money that Americans earn

should all belong to the government.]

As usual, this is not about anything the Democrats say it

is about. If they are worried about the deficit, why did they

add to the deficit to get this deal?

Republicans would have compromised by simply extending the

current rates for two years instead of permanently. Obama saw

that bet and raised unemployment insurance, earned income tax

credit, American opportunity tax credit, child tax credit,

payroll tax, and investment incentives. Congressional

Democrats saw that bet and raised it ethanol and alternative

fuels subsidies.

This is all about the Democrats rewarding their interest

groups and blaming the certain deficit on Republicans. As

usual, the Stupid Party will see that bet, holding a pair of

deuces.

I'll try to clarify it with another analogy. A 700-pound

man goes to the doctor. The doctor says the man needs to

diet, and in fact prescribes a certain salad as the man's

meal for the next few months. The 700-pound man agrees to eat

the salad each meal--along with three roasted chickens, two

pounds of bacon, a large pizza, and four cheeseburgers with

the works. In his view, he compromised with his doctor.

Then when the man weighs 800 pounds after a few months, he

blames his doctor.

Now you play doctor. Would you make that compromise, given

you'll be sued for malpractice if the man gains weight?

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1766 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I must say that I understand the point of the gentleman. I think spending this kind of money, over $700 billion over 10 years for 6,600 families in the United States, is a foolish expenditure. I do agree that what we want to do is get the deficit down, and believe me, that does not do it.

Technically, though, this point of order is about whether or not to consider the rule and, ultimately, the underlying measure. And, in reality, it's about trying to block the measure. I believe that that's an abdication of our responsibility. We have to have the opportunity to debate, and without an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, we are failing our responsibility. I think that is wrong.

I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider the legislation on its merits and vote accordingly and not stop it on a procedural motion.

I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments this morning. I urge him to vote ``no'' on this bill if he plans to do that, and I think he will find a great deal of company. But I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we may debate and vote on this piece of legislation today.

It is not perfect by any means. I rarely see a piece of perfect legislation. But remember that what we are doing here is concurring in a Senate bill, which limited the fact of how many changes that we would be able to make.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on House Resolution 1766.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1766 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act.

The rule provides 3 hours of debate and makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. If that motion fails, the rule causes to be pending a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853.

Finally, until completion of all proceedings, the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening motion, resolution, question, or notice; the Chair may postpone proceedings to a time designated by the Speaker; and each amendment and motion shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan agreement on a framework for extending middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment relief is certainly not perfect. In fact, I don't like it much at all.

In the lead-up to the debate here this morning, a lot of my constituents have encouraged me to oppose it. They know it is an unwarranted handout for millionaires and billionaires at a time when we are still fighting two wars with countless pressing needs here at home and a deficit that would push us further into the red by this giveaway.

A typical sentiment was reflected in a call from Ken, a Niagara Falls resident, who phoned my office to insist it was wrong-headed for Democrats, who control the House, the Senate, and White House, to agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. His words were: ``Barack Obama is still the President of the United States, not Mitch McConnell, and McConnell should not get to dictate tax policy.'' To that, I say, I hear you. But, nonetheless, today here we are.

There are some good things in this bill. Certainly extending unemployment relief for struggling American workers who may have been laid off and simply need assistance to help them buy groceries and necessities until they find a new job is important.

During the last 2 years, this Congress has voted to cut taxes for working parents and small businesses at least eight times, and lower tuition costs for college students. We have provided the best opportunities for growth and prosperity.

But losing $25 billion in revenue to provide a tax shelter to 6,600 families who will qualify for this new estate tax handout is just wrong, it is disgraceful, and it is damaging to the entire economic future of this country.

In the aftermath of this negotiation, the President was accused of quitting in the first round, giving away the store, punting on first down, and other things that I don't want to go into here. But while this agreement is flawed, there are parts of it, as I said, that will benefit the American people.

Failure to send the bill to the President's desk for his signature would result in tax hikes on millions of middle class families across our country and loss of unemployment insurance for those who are hardest hit by this recession.

More importantly, I think it might risk slowing the economic recovery. However, I think it is very important

for me to make this point: we have lived with these tax cuts for 10 years. It is certainly no secret to any American or anybody else in the world that our unemployment condition is perfectly awful. And to try to pretend to the American people that once we pass this great tax cut for the rich that jobs are suddenly going to rain on us makes us feel like Alice in Wonderland, able to believe 10 impossible things before breakfast. I am just not one of them. It will not make that kind of difference. It simply, once again, makes the rich richer. But that was the price we had to pay for helping the middle class and the unemployed.

I note that many of these tax cuts, as we know, were created 10 years ago. And what have they brought? Nothing but a deep-lasting recession. But what I also want to comment on here is the impossibility of this Congress to let these tax cuts expire, which would in itself decrease the deficit by 50 percent in 2 years, says to me that these will never expire. And I want to put that in connection with what we have done to the payroll tax.

I consider this one of the greatest threats to Social Security and its future. If anybody here believes, if anyone can stand up and believe that we are going to be able to reinstate that payroll tax on employers and employees, they only need to look at what is happening here today, that after 10 years of experience, which brought us no jobs, we are expanding tax cuts which will, again, bring us no jobs.

If this agreement doesn't become law, I know that the tax rates on the middle class will go up. They are going to end up paying more money, and I hate that, because God knows all the benefits in the last 10 years have gone to the wealthy.

I dread seeing my America, the one I grew up in and I love, where I don't believe that the American Dream is available for children anymore. I am not going to cry about it, but I know that now that the rich are richer and the poor are poorer, the poor children don't think about that much anymore. They think about trying to get an education, if they can, or trying to live another year.

So we have to take this bill up today. No question about it. And I feel very sad about it. But I will tell you that it has been our experience that these are the prices that we have to pay when we negotiate with our partners on the other side. They believe in trickle- down with all their heart: make everybody richer at the top, all those great folks, even those with great inherited wealth, as my colleague Mr. McGovern said, who may never have worked a day in their life, and suddenly jobs are going to be produced. Please, America, please don't believe that. That is not what we are doing here today. We are not doing anything to benefit this economy here today.

That logic of driving up long-term deficits and putting the government in the red more than it is, to hand out money for a tiny fraction of taxpayers, is that really a sensible thing for America to be doing today? I think not. But we know that the other side in the coming years will pursue even more tax breaks for the wealthiest and the wealthiest estates. All of those tangible outcomes are directed toward millionaires and billionaires. As long as I am serving in Congress, I will resist this with every fiber of my being because I don't think it does anything for our economy while adding to the deficit.

In the end, I am here to encourage my colleagues to support this rule so that we may have this 3-hour debate, which will give people plenty of time on both sides to express their opinion. It is a fair process. All the Members will be able to express their views.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This House--the people's House--has a simple choice today: raise taxes on families and small businesses or prevent a massive job-killing tax increase from going into effect a mere 16 days from now.

If you think our economy can handle higher taxes, if you think middle class families should lose roughly $100 per week out of their paychecks, then vote ``no'' today. Make no mistake about it, a ``no'' vote today is a vote for higher taxes, taxes that would devastate families and send shock waves throughout our economy.

If you believe we should stop this massive tax increase in its tracks, especially when unemployment is stuck at nearly 10 percent, then vote ``yes.'' If you want to be sure we don't extend the failed Making Work Pay policy from the failed stimulus law that has the IRS writing checks to people who pay no income or payroll taxes, then vote ``yes.'' If you are opposed to the Federal Government taking more than half of a family farm or business due to a death, then vote ``yes.'' And if you are interested in fundamental tax reform--getting rid of exemptions, deductions, and loopholes that complicate our Tax Code-- then vote ``yes'' because this bill gives us the time that we need to rewrite the Tax Code, cut spending next year, and get our economy back on track.

I know some of my friends want to wait until January when Republicans are back in the majority because they think that we can get a better deal. That is as misguided as it is politically callous. And let me be blunt. It's irresponsible to play a game of chicken with the Senate and the White House next year when middle class Americans are literally forced to pay $100 more a week in taxes and are forced to suffer even greater job losses. If this bill fails today, that's what will happen. Paychecks and jobs will burn while Washington fiddles.

If that's your stance, then I ask, What better deal could we get? People talk about making tax rates permanent. That's something I support. That's something every Republican in this House supports. But how does waiting until January, February, March, April, or May make that a reality?

The Senate voted yesterday on the DeMint amendment which would have made the rates permanent, and it failed 37-63. Last time I looked, we didn't pick up 23 seats in the United States Senate. And the President has flatly refused to sign such legislation into law. So again, tell me, how do we get a better deal by waiting? It makes no sense to gamble with the American people's jobs and the very paychecks they rely on to put food on the table and keep the house warm this winter.

Americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression. This is not a time for political speeches or electoral posturing. This is a time to act responsibly, to do what is right, and to vote ``yes.'' Employers are begging us to pass this legislation. Small businesses and the National Federation of Independent Business are supporting the bill because they know they cannot afford a tax hike. The Business Roundtable which represents the largest employers in the country with over 12 million employees is supporting this bill because they know the economy cannot afford a tax hike.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting this legislation because they know we cannot afford a tax hike. The National Association of Manufacturers is supporting this legislation. Economists across the spectrum, from the far left to the far right, are supporting this legislation, and so should the Members of this House.

By no means is this bill perfect. For example, I think we should have paid for the extension of unemployment insurance and, frankly, we will. I'm committed to producing legislation next year to revamp, reform, and pay for the Federal unemployment benefits our Nation provides. We should not have to choose between adding to the deficit and providing this important help, but we cannot allow that single concern to hold this bill up.

Time has run out. This is our only chance, and the harm to our economy and the hit families would suffer is far too great a risk.

And let's be clear, this bill is about taxes, longstanding tax policy, for that matter, and preventing a tax hike. It isn't about spending. Nearly 90 percent of this bill is tax policy, and that policy is aimed at preventing a tax hike for families and employers or providing direct tax relief to the American worker.

It also protects family farms, ranches and businesses from being hit by the destructive death tax. That will go as high as 55 percent next year if we do not act. Instead, this bill reduces that rate to 35 percent, while increasing the exemption amount from $1 million to $5 million.

Now, I know $1 million sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But think about the family farmers in your districts. Think about the costs of the big machinery it takes to operate and manage their land. Some of the combines I see every day in my district cost a quarter of a million each. That isn't cash in the bank. That's equipment in the field,

and the Federal Government has no right to take half of it when mom or dad passes on.

While I support a total repeal of the death tax, at least this bill makes significant improvements to the estate and gift taxes, and it deserves our support.

Members should also know, and the American people should know, that this bill does not contain new policy. New provisions were not snuck in late in the night or behind closed doors. We took a firm stand against new policy. We took a firm stand against policy that had not been renewed repeatedly and, as a result, more than 70 provisions, some of them my own, were excluded from the bill, well over $100 billion worth.

The most notable provisions of these we terminated were from the failed stimulus bill, like the refundable Making Work Pay credit, the Build America Bonds program, which simply subsidized State and local governments going deeper into debt, and grants in lieu of the low- income housing credit. None of that is in here, nor are there the usual Washington Christmas tree ornaments. This bill is narrowly focused on tax and unemployment policy.

Unlike the omnibus Democrats are preparing, there are no earmarks like the $2 million for an Ice Age National Scenic trail in Wisconsin. There isn't a $3.5 million study on subterranean termites in New Orleans, and there certainly isn't an extra $1 billion for the new job- killing health care law.

My friends, the election's over. Let's not start the next campaign here today. Let's make the right choice. Let's stop this tax hike from going into effect in 2 weeks. Let's put our constituents' jobs before our own. Let's show the American people we can govern and we can take yes for an answer.

So let's pass this bill with broad bipartisan support, as the Senate did yesterday by a vote of 81-19. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say, the gentleman from Arizona who spoke is a cosponsor of the legislation that would reduce the payroll tax that would give the so-called pay hike to Members of Congress. But let me just say, this payroll tax deduction applies to every working American, just as the rate reductions apply to every small business in America.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1766 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this tax package that the House will consider shortly. While there may not be unfunded mandates per se in the bill, this will impose a burden on States and local governments and everyone else here. And particularly it will add a huge burden to our kids and our grandkids, because we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars that will go directly to the deficit and directly to our $14 trillion national debt.

On November 2, I think we got a pretty good message from the taxpayers. They wanted us to stop running deficits and to start paying down the debt. Yet before we even get to the new year, just weeks away from the election, here we are, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit and to the debt. This compromise shows that Washington just doesn't get it yet. We simply didn't get the message we were supposed to on November 2.

I do support the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that were enacted, and we also have to find a remedy for the death tax. But we've got to do it in a different way than this. Congress can take swift action to ensure that taxes don't go up, but we shouldn't be adding the other items that we're doing here. It's taken on the seasonal theme again, of course. It's become a Christmas tree. I'll explain a few of the items in it. But it just notes, more than anything, that we haven't gotten the message, that we're just going about things the same way we always have.

Let me just take one provision here, ethanol. We've been subsidizing ethanol now for nearly 30 years. It's about a $6 billion a year subsidy. They have the trifecta, the ethanol industry. We mandate its use. We impose tariffs to imports to make sure we can compete, and then we subsidize as well. And we're going to continue to do all those things here for an industry that should be mature at this time, but it's continuing to get subsidies. How in the world that belongs as part of this tax package I'll leave for the voters to decide. But it just shows that we haven't changed. When are we going to wake up to the fact that we can't continue to do business like this anymore?

With regard to ethanol, one of the former backers was former Vice President Al Gore. He said the other day: One of the reasons I made this mistake--this mistake being supporting the subsidizing of ethanol--is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home State of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the State of Iowa because I was about to run for President.

Now, that's a pretty candid admission. And the reason we have ethanol subsidies is that all Presidential campaigns begin in Iowa. But that's no reason to saddle the rest of the country with this kind of burden. And also the negative impacts on the environment are huge and growing from ethanol, yet we continue to do it just to buy a couple of votes to get this tax bill over the top.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time

I appreciate the comments of the gentlelady. She brings up that this is a technicality, that we're just speaking here on a point of order when we should be speaking on the bill and that we should debate this bill on the merits. I would like to. That's why I actually submitted an amendment to the gentlelady's committee, to the Rules Committee, to debate the ethanol provision; yet it wasn't included. We weren't allowed to debate that. And so if we're not allowed to debate that then under the rule, then we have to debate it some other time.

I would love to hear an explanation from the Rules Committee as to why this wasn't included and why only amendments that may make Members feel good about voting on but have no possibility of delaying this package were even considered.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman.

Just continuing on the ethanol theme, Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute said recently: ``Between 1999 and 2009, while U.S. ethanol production increased sevenfold to more than 700,000 barrels a day, U.S. oil imports actually increased by more than 800,000 barrels per day. Furthermore, and perhaps more surprising, during the same period, U.S. oil exports--yes, exports--more than doubled to more than 2 million barrels per day.

``Data from the Energy Information Administration show that oil imports closely track U.S. oil consumption. Over the past decade, as domestic oil demand grew, imports increased. When consumption fell, imports dropped. Ramped-up ethanol production levels simply had no apparent effect on oil imports or consumption.''

We have every level of the administration, anybody who analyzes this says that this is a boondoggle; and yet it reappears here, a $6 billion item, not insubstantial, not small. But it appears here in this tax package simply to get it over the line. That simply can't happen anymore if we're going to get control on this debt and deficit.

Let me talk about one other provision of the tax bill. All of us talk about the burden that the payroll tax has, and it is big. And it's tough for taxpayers to pay the payroll tax. I would like to lower it. I think everybody would like to lower it. But the payroll tax is dedicated specifically for Social Security. It goes into the Social Security trust fund.

Under this legislation, we'll have a 2 percent reduction in the payroll tax on the employee side. That will net somebody like me or any Member of Congress here about $2,000 a year. What does it do for the deficit? It will balloon the deficit by $120 billion a year. One year from now, because it's only a 1-year reduction, we'll be faced with this same problem.

What do we do as Republicans? We always say we're not going to raise taxes on anybody, no matter how temporary the tax. We'll be forced politically, with the situation, where do we increase this tax? Do we let it go? If we let it continue, that's another $120 billion hole in the deficit and in the Social Security trust fund. Why are we doing that?

If we do have payroll tax deductions, we may well want to, but at least let's have commensurate benefit cuts on the other side. Let's address benefits on the other side. If we're not going to lower them, then we shouldn't lower this.

This is simply irresponsible for us to take a bill like this and assume that it's not going to have an impact on the deficit and not going to have an impact on the debt.

Where are we now? Just a few weeks ago, every one of us, I tell you, every one of us running for office said to the voters, we're going to get control of the debt and the deficit. All of us said that. And yet our first actions here, before we even go into the next Congress, is to put a bill on the floor that's going to balloon the debt and deficit. How can we do that? We can't. We shouldn't. That's why I am raising this point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Again, this is a package that we simply cannot afford. We cannot go on as if the deficit and the debt don't matter. Not only that they don't matter, but we expand them considerably. We can continue the tax cuts for every American. We can do that without these extra things in the bill. Let's wait until January. Let's wait until we have a new Congress, and let's do a different deal than this. This is not a deal that is good for the taxpayer; it is not a deal that is good for this institution.

We have said that we will change and that we got the message. This is evidence that we haven't.

I yield back the balance of my time.